>>>>>
Not very many years ago -- two? three? -- there was near unanimity among scientists that global warming was real and not just a statistical tic, at least among those scientists not employed by the petrochemical industry >>>>>
>>>>>Mike, this is incorrect. The notion of "global warming" has always been hotly (no pun intended) debated amongst scientsts outside the realm of those funded by the state (and even within the state) There has never been a near-unanimous view.
>>>>>
>>>>>You may want to look at the Global Warming Petition project (
http://www.petitionproject.org/) , as well as research studies done at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (
http://www.oism.org/s32p1853.htm)
>>>>>
>>>>>Global warming is pseudo-science, period - it has as many pre-conceived agendas as the anti-nuclear energy agendas in the late 1970's and early 1980's, which were just as fraudulent (and wound up setting this country back, energy-wise).
>>>>>
>>>>>There's a paper trail of warming advocates who have avoided direct debate with warming opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have let your continuing obnoxious comments -- Tim Lincecum, even my daughter -- go by. This one I will not let go by. You are so wrong it is almost comical. I stand by my statement that there was and is near unanimity among serious scientists. There was and is. The blowback from the industry has attracted the likes of you, I'm-against-everything types looking for a place to launch their free floating anger. Uninformed blowhards, to put it in a phrase. Sorry, but I'm on the side of the scientists.
>>>>.
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought his message was unusually respectful and tasteful. I didn't read anything angry or obnoxious in it at all. Update: I added the tag lines to separate the messages and I still do not read anything angry or obnoxious in it - only a difference of opinion with links supplied to support his opinion.
>>
>>It was not his tone I objected to -- a nice rarity -- it was the message. When someone asserts with all seriousness that global warming is fictitious it gets my back up. I don't need to prove the case. Among scientists this is a settled matter and has been for some time. What we are experiencing at the moment, repeating myself, is pushback from those with a lot to lose. With plenty of willing dupes.
>
>
>You'd have done well in the 1600's when the globally accepted philosophy is that the world was flat and that the sun rotates around the earth. How many "rogue scientists" underwnt hanging, poisioning, imprisonment, etc, because they had the audacity to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun and the earth was really a giant sphere against prevailing "concrete science". Same situation here today. The left is the prevailing science doctrine and there is nothing the left says, does, produces, or is involved with that I can trust or believe in.
The left? Why is global warming a scientific theory that should appeal to the left?
